In re the Marriage of Healy, 2016 MT 154 (June 21, 2016) (Cotter, J.) (5-0, aff’d)
Issue: (1) Whether the district court had jurisdiction to decide the CSED motion when there was no showing of changed circumstances making the existing child support obligation unconscionable; (2) whether the district court misapprehended the evidence when it made findings about John’s future income potential; and (3) whether the district court erred when it imposed a 10% interest penalty on the parents’ required college trust contributions.
Short Answer: (1) Yes; (2) no, but it abused its discretion in making it retroactive to February 2014; and (3) no.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded
Facts: The Healys married in 1998. They had a daughter in 199 and a son in 2000.…